An Analysis of the National Ranches Commission Bill, 2024
The National Ranches Commission Bill, 2024 (sponsored by Senator Titus Zam) passed second reading in the Nigerian Senate and was referred by that body for committee deliberation. The committee is expected to report within one month from the referral and it is expected that there will be public consultation after the committee report …. There have already been interventions by two eminent contributors propounding the argument that the National Assembly does not have the power, under the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, to enact legislation establishing ranches ….
On the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Circular Relating to the Collection and Remittance of the National Cybersecurity Levy
In the first place, who and who fall within the category of ‘customer’ in whose account deductions are to be reflected with the narration ‘Cybersecurity Levy’? … [I]t is imperative and of utmost urgency that the CBN provides clarification about its implementation guidance and, specifically, whether deductions can be made from the accounts of individuals and entities not falling within the businesses specified in the second Schedule to the Act but who are involved in transactions with such businesses.
News Item Update: FIRS Clarifies Issue of Stamp Duty on Rent Agreements etc
https://thenationonlineng.net/tenants-to-pay-0-78-percent-stamp-duty-firs-clarifies
Director, Tax Policy of the FIRS, Mr. Mathew Gbonjubola during a webinar conference put clarity to the rates. Mr. Gbonjubola explained that “the 6% stamp duty is for tenancy above 21 years while 7 to 21 years lease or tenancy attracts 3% and less than 7-year tenancy is below 1%.” Mr. Femi Oluwaniyi, Coordinating Director, Tax Operations Group of the FIRS told The Nation that stamp duty on rent or lease only applies to new agreements and not to renewals.
News Item: Rent Agreements, C of O etc now to Attract Stamp Duty
https://thenationonlineng.net/house-rent-agreement-cofo-others-must-carry-stamp-duty-says-firs
Indicative of trend of aggressive approach to revenue generation …
Arbitration and the Nigerian Constitution
Since 1988 the legislation typically invoked in Nigeria as the framework legislation concerning commercial arbitration has been the federal Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988 – although many states continue to have legacy arbitration legislation from Nigeria’s colonial era on their statute books. The introduction and enactment of the Lagos State Arbitration Law of 2009, as an alternative to the federal legislation, and that state’s argument that it has the necessary competence under the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 has ignited a serious constitutional debate about legislative competence over arbitration – especially arbitration concerning transactions or disputes with connections to more than one state or beyond Nigeria.
The purpose of this brief essay is to summarise a generally overlooked line of argument, based on a conceptual appreciation of arbitration and extant Nigerian judicial authority, that the 1999 Constitution is consistent with the conclusion that both the federal and states’ legislatures have competence to enact arbitration legislation in respect of transactions or disputes with connections to more than one state or beyond Nigeria.
Attending a meeting of a regional branch of the Nigerian Bar Association for the first time recently, a ‘neophyte’ of some sort could not help being amused by some incidences and turns of events.
Despite being familiar with the old saw ‘there are no ladies/women at the bar’ it was still amusing and a bit jarring to hear a number of female lawyers introduce themselves in the manner “Halima Sandra Esquire” (this being a made-up name used only for exemplification). The cognitive dissonance of the hapless observer was not exactly helped by the Chairman and other speakers (on the podium as well as on the floor) referring to an audience that consisted of about 40% women only as ‘gentlemen’.
Significant development … Lagos State Government seeks to test constitutionality and legality of virtual courts in the Supreme Court …
Lagos Sues AGF, NASS over Virtual Court Hearings
Main Issue ….
In the suit filed at the Supreme Court through the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), Lagos is praying the apex court to determine “whether having regard to Section 36 (1), (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), use of technology by remote hearings of any kind, whether by Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, Skype or any other audiovisual or video-conference platform by the Lagos State High Court or any other courts in Nigeria in aid of hearing and determination of cases, are constitutional”.
In the news … Chair of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) adopts a similar line of argument as Lex Nigeriana in respect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Udeogu, aka the Orji Kalu case.
https://thenationonlineng.net/udeogu-kalu-case-major-setback-for-justice-administration
https://thenationonlineng.net/supreme-court-verdict-on-udeogu-shocking-says-sagay
Interesting quote …
It is alright for a lawyer fresh from the Law School or a young newly appointed judge to indulge in 2 + 2 equals 4 type of judgment. As he gains experience and progresses up the ladder of authority, he must add the norms and values of society to his judgments. At that level, a judgment must be based on justice, merit, not on technicalities.
Towards Resolving the Imbroglio Arising from the Orji Kalu Case
In light of the ‘unjustifiable’ setback to the Nigerian judicial system occasioned by the Supreme court’s decision in Ude Jones Udeogu v Federal Republic of Nigeria (unreported Appeal No SC. 662C/2019; delivered May 8, 2020), the ‘Orji Uzo Kalu case’, attention turns to the possible ways of mitigating or ameliorating the negative effects of the decision.
The Orji Kalu Case – Was the Supreme Court Correct?
Is Section 396(7) of the Administration of Justice Act 2015 Truly Inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution or Was the Supreme Court Wrong?
In its recent judgment in Ude Jones Udeogu v Federal Republic of Nigeria (unreported Appeal No SC. 662C/2019; delivered May 8, 2020), the Nigerian Supreme Court declared section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (‘ACJA’) to be inconsistent with provisions of the Nigerian Constitution of 1999. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that section 396(7) of the ACJA is inconsistent with section 290 of the 1999 Constitution and that it is thus void to the extent of that inconsistency.
It is the contention in this essay that, at the very least, section 396(7) of the ACJA is capable of legitimate and juridically sound interpretation in a manner consistent with both sections 253 and 290 of the 1999 Constitution. At the worst, the Supreme Court’s approach to the interpretation of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions is, arguably, erroneous …